Issue relating to whether Family Court has jurisdiction to try application filed by a divorced Muslim woman for maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and whether Family Court can convert the petition for maintenance under S. 125 CrPC to one under S. 3 or S. 4 of the 1986 Act and decide the same, pending adjudication before a larger Bench herein

[Rana Nahid v. Sahidul Haq Chisti, (2025) 2 SCC 113]


case comment

 Held, There are cases pending inter se the parties before the High Court and one would have thought that litigation fatigue ought to have set in by now for both the parties to take a reasonable stand to put a quietus to the whole dispute. We, thus, gave an opportunity to the learned counsel for the respondent to have consultation with respondent whether a quietus could be put to the whole dispute. The response of the learned counsel for the respondent however is based on what is already stated in the written synopsis towards the end i.e. a quietus can be put against the amount awarded by Family Court of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- having been paid, the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is further enhanced by Rs.3,00,000/- to come to Rs.5,00,000/-. However, we feel that amount is too low for a settlement and if the respondent was serious in this endeavour, the amount has to be substantively more so that the returns from the same can meet the requirements of appellant No.1. We are told that appellant No.2 has now completed his engineering. We can still hope that at some stage better sense prevail over the parties and they can agree over an acceptable amount.

Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Do not copy the content of this website.

Terms And condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.